What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
155 Comments
- angrykeyboarder, on 12/07/2007, -7/+70This is a classic example of my "love-hate" relationship with Wikipedia.
It's run by a cliquish mob.
In spite of that, it's generally a great resource. - inactive, on 12/07/2007, -0/+52One can COPY the whole wikipedia and make a new one, the license ALLOWS it.
- MogusMaximus, on 12/07/2007, -11/+58whoa, whoa, whoa... easy now Wikipedia. We of the internet created you, and we can as easily destroy you.
- Draicone, on 12/07/2007, -7/+51Information Wants To Be Free
You Will Assimilate Into Our Information
Resistance Is Futile
-- Wikipedia Secret Police - Kisama, on 12/07/2007, -3/+33We are anonymous. We do not forgive. We do not forget.
- drgott, on 12/07/2007, -6/+24...the truth, and nothing but the truth, as we want it to be known...new wiki motto?
- Patchie01, on 12/07/2007, -6/+24Wikipedia's response to an inquiry about this article....
There are a variety of trash "information" sites, "reviews", blogs etc. that attack Wikipedia. There is simply no time or resources to publish rebuttals to their nonsense.
Yours sincerely, David Monniaux - CompIsMyRx, on 12/07/2007, -1/+16Your post doesn't make any sense. Wikipedia and Digg are used for completely separate things. Comparing the two is like comparing apples to bicycles. They can both be red, but that's about it.
- diggerphelps, on 12/07/2007, -2/+17So just plain don't use it.
- postalblowfish7, on 12/07/2007, -3/+17then add information.
- whatthefu, on 12/07/2007, -5/+18***** awesome, in depth article. Have to digg.
- vclortho, on 12/07/2007, -2/+15I've gotta say both parties are guilty of being total *****.
- nmajdan, on 12/07/2007, -6/+19I love Wikipedia and I hate seeing yet another chink in its reputation. The register has a history of negative articles about Wikipedia so I won't cast blame until I read the other side. For some reason, there are people out there that literally want to destroy Wikipedia, for reasons I don't understand.
- angrykeyboarder, on 12/07/2007, -3/+14I like the old one better. The current one seems a bit inaccurate don't you think? ;)
- freezervv, on 12/07/2007, -4/+14Then doesn't that make it a successful system?
- IslandSaint, on 12/07/2007, -2/+12What is the black helicopter reference?
- RabidAngel, on 12/07/2007, -1/+11Interestingly, this is absolutely correct. Thus, to Rustiga, I would say that Wikipedia should in fact care about "a million digg users".
- Afrotronics, on 12/07/2007, -10/+19WTF, it's just wikipedia. That's like saying in the mid 90's that the guys from Microsoft are trying to make their own reality by using Encarta to spread misinformation. Jesus m-fing Christ people, if you feel threatened by a ban from ANY website because you criticize it you are a gigantic vagoo. It's not like they are personally pulling into your drive way, honking the horn, and waving a gun at you. Remember people run websites, if you criticize these people or what they have created you may offend them. If you offend them enough they just might not want you to come to their website anymore. Plus, if a site blocks your IP just call up your ISP and say "hey would it be cool if you guys renewed my IP address"? Most of the time they won't have a problem with that (well from my experience at least and I have Comcost ). This BS surrounding Judd Bagley vs Wikipedia is stupid high school bickering and should stop making the front page of digg, reddit, or any other social bookmarking site.
- vanq, on 12/07/2007, -3/+12What a ridiculous statement. Some of these allegations, such as the one featured in this article, could not be more dire. Much like the banking system, Wikipedia relies on the public trust. Without that trust, the site is finished. From my point of view, a failure to respond to such serious allegations is an implicit admission of guilt. Take them seriously, and respond seriously.
- IlMagnifico, on 12/07/2007, -3/+12Jimmy Wales takes himself too seriously. I LOVE wikipedia, but he has to stop acting like he owns it. And what's with 'Jimbo'? To paraphrase Michael Douglas -- I don't even know him. I have worked for my boss for 16 years and I still call him 'Mister'. And here I walk into Wikipedia and we're calling each other Chris and Jimbo like some goddamned AA meeting.
I'd rather people stopped trying to make themselves more 'lovable' by using nicknames for themselves. - coreyb, on 12/07/2007, -0/+8MIB, black helicopters, conspiracy theories, etc... yet the funny thing is, I live by Traverse Mountain and there are black military helicopters that DO fly around it, lol!
- vanq, on 12/07/2007, -1/+9Maybe because, in today's world, information is power and, at Wikipedia, the information is controlled by a clique of administrators and the ominously named "Arbitration Committee." It is not a democracy. Hell, it isn't even a meritocracy. The Arbitration Committee is elected by a combination of popular vote and the personal preference of Jimbo. This system is vastly inferior to the power structure that would be in place at, say, Encyclopedia Britannica. So the popular kids are in charge over at Wikipedia and that, in no way, assures that objectively true information will be king.
- inactive, on 12/07/2007, -1/+9"It's democratic in the same way that science is democratic"
Science isn't democratic. In fact, science says that democracy is based on a fallacy: appeal to popularity.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to ... - synarchy, on 12/07/2007, -0/+8Sounds like quite the opposite, and that wikipedia is being used to cover-up corruption by major players in the stock market. You should try reading all five pages of the story.
- SemiSarcastic, on 12/07/2007, -2/+9But when a few moderators and admins can control the information flowing it becomes an oligarchical dictatorship. You can't preach democracy over the internet when your very actions contradict its ideas.
- HonestAbe, on 12/07/2007, -0/+7SRSLY. If you don't like the way Wikipedia works, copy the content and start your own. That's what Conservapedia did.
- DavidYeah, on 12/07/2007, -1/+8Wrong. There's more to the eqaution than just "being denied access to a web site." You totally stripped out the notion that there are larger effects of wikipedia than just being an amusing website. Wikipedia is often the first website to appear for informational sources when you do a google search. That's powerful stuff, and if they're claiming to have the authority of being corrected by millions of people, I don't want them banning people from posting if those people are posting things that are ideologically different from what the admins believe.
This is like saying that if you don't like the practices of a business, then just don't shop there and leave the rest of us alone. WRONG. If you don't like what they are doing, then you should be out telling people why what they are doing is wrong. The world exists outside your little head and its shopping and web site preferences. - PoshDecor, on 12/07/2007, -6/+13The concept of Wiki is indeed a good one, however it is very impractical. If "what" is written there is considered truth, and Google seems to think it is, then the power to warp history and change ideology rest with those privileged few who are allowed to edit. For the most part, history is written by the victors. Facts are facts, but the emotions of those facts can change warping the fact for the future. All in all, I believe in open communication, but this reminds me of the book Animal Farm: as the pig said, All animals are created equal, some are just more equal. Wish this wasn't true for Wiki.
- vanq, on 12/07/2007, -3/+9Congratulations! You get the "I completely missed the point" gold star!
- colobikeguy, on 12/07/2007, -5/+11Every successful organization is run by a cliquish mob. They are called directors in corporations, Congress in the United States... etc. There is nothing new about this. The only thing new is that one person is able to raise the issue and bring it to the forefront. This is the thing that is unprecedented....
I moved to NYC and based on my experience, I can totally believe the CEO of Overstock. The media and stock markets are controlled from this city. Whatever the reputation this city has for being 'capitalistic' is patently false. I mean, they look to the Fed for rescue for their own incompetence evaluating risk of the CDOs. I mean how hypocritcal is that?
NYC's whole schtick is to put themselves into a postion to skim from wealth already created. It doesn't surprise me that the brokerage houses use dirty tactics like short selling to brow beat corporations into compliance.
The neat thing is that the overall free market system is diffusing their power. You see, formal trading systems have been opened up elsewhere and are weakening the NYSE. The media power is being diffused by the internet because I can now get better news from FT.com or reuters than from the NY Times or WSJ.
This is all a lovely occurence.
I remember when I pissed off a Brooklyn native when I commented that the entire NYC economy is based on skimming. If you look at the history of NYC it is about skimming (fur trading, to shipping, to stock markets, etc.) You can see it in the culture here. Generally people and groups here are amoral (not necessarily immoral) and status oriented. There really isn't an entrepeneurial spirit here above the street level. How many successful start ups began in NYC and turned into billion dollar enterprised like Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, etc? For gods sake, the 500,000 population city I moved from had more 'built from the ground' type of large organizations than this city.
I lived in more democratic locales like Ca, Wa, and Tx where there was money in the dissenting voice. That isnt true here. Here, the money is found in having a compliant power base. With that power base you can shove wealth under your thumb and start skimming. You can really shove that much wealth under you without a large power base. So dissenting voices are rapidly supressed. I found out the hard way. :)
When I pointed this out to a friend (a Brooklyn native) he got pissed. The funny thing was that his response was classic NYC: dirty office workplace tactics,, etc. This was over just pointing out something innocuous that had very little to do with any but NYC pride. He made up afterawhile... but his instict wasnt just to get mad and debate... it was to assert some kind of power structure. It was amusing in retrospect because he had no power... but he did all the typical stuff.
So, whenever someone criticizes the stock market or implies collusion between the media and the market, they have my instant attention.
No, I don't believe there is a 'they' cabal at work trying to figure out how to do all of the above. Each individual or groups are just acting in their own self interest. The collusion is derived from the culture of squashing dissent that has developed over time in this place. The result is a sort of overall self interest reactionary responses to threats to their dominance that have the characteristics of 'squashing.'
Personally, I believe that this instinct is at play in the efforts to squash domestic dissent via the Congress. In the long run, things will change because an economy simply cannot support this kind of structure (e.g., the comments on 'wasteful' legislation on this digg site) and continue to grow. There is too much of an economic advantage to a diffused collaborative type of structures like wikipedia or linux. The days of the command and control structure, either in corporations, markets, or government, are numbered. The new structure is going to be team work, collaboration, semi-open forum, and transparency.
When you think about, that was how the framers drafted the Constitution. - NinjaBoy, on 12/07/2007, -0/+6I use it to get an idea of what information i should study, not for the information its self. For instance i dont know a single part of an oil rig, i could look it up on wikipedia and then start googling the parts and by the time i was done have a very well written paper on oil rigs and how they are made.
- kara1234, on 12/07/2007, -1/+7You should read the article, the allegations are clearly laid out and supported. Pretending that this is all nonsense is just an attempt to make it go away and to allow the abuses to continue.
- SemiSarcastic, on 12/07/2007, -2/+7Andrew Keen was right all along. "The internet is just a group of gated communities that share only biased ideas" . Welcome to Web 2.0: where everyone can be a narcissistic dictator.
- DavidYeah, on 12/07/2007, -10/+15I disagree that Wikipedia isn't democratic. It's democratic in the same way that science is democratic-- all scientists can create research and submit it for consideration for the scientific community, but if it's no good, it's disproven and essentially voted down.
That's what happens in wikipedia. Killing bad entries is a check and balance function. - inactive, on 12/07/2007, -2/+7More incomplete info from another unknown.
- boredsam, on 12/07/2007, -1/+6except those oiled up topless girls playing the Wii
- Bridea, on 12/07/2007, -9/+13Wow, way to get your panties in a bunch over a freaking website. You don't like their policies? Then don't patronize the site.
- kranberry, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4Instead of the "is not/is too" comments, it should be easy to verify some of the story. Check the four Wikipedia articles mentioned for accuracy. If they are not accurate, try to edit them. See what the end result is and report back to Digg.
- bigwave111, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4Anyone have a link to that power point presentation that they mention in the article? I'd be interested to see it.
- missingnoh4x, on 12/07/2007, -1/+5But the unknowns usually cite sources. Scroll down to the bottom of any page, you can see the citations.
- Rustiga, on 12/07/2007, -4/+8Don't care too much about the politics of it. I'm still gonna use it for it's actual intended purpose, access to information.
I doubt the folks at Wiki even care about a "million digg users." - rmxz, on 12/07/2007, -5/+9For everyone who criticize WikiPedia, I only have one thing to say.
If you think you know how Wikipedia can be run better, instead of whining on digg - fork the project.
If you're right, we'll all follow you to your new and better encylopedia.
If you're wrong, at least I didn't have to hear you whine.
In either case the internet will be a better place. - inactive, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
- inactive, on 12/07/2007, -2/+6Naked short selling for fun and profit. FTW
- jimmiss, on 12/07/2007, -3/+7This kinda makes me sad. Wikipedia was supposed to democratize the flow of information. (At your own risk). I guess the saying that power corrupts will hold true forever.
- merreborn, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4Wikipedia is not, and has never been a democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_n ... - nmajdan, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4I am an administrator on Wikipedia but I still try to avoid that clique. I help out where and when I can but I'm not the person that has the time to devote to Wikipedia that some of these people do. I think the ArbCom does the best it can with what it has to work with. If more regular editors participated, they could swing the vote. Jimbo has no official role in deciding who is on ArbCom.
- inactive, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4Yeah, I call pluralism pluralism and I call democracy democracy, it's a silly pet-peeve of mine.
God is great, and by God I mean me and by great I mean better. - bullcutter, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4I think the core problem is Wikipedia doesn't want people manipulating entries for their own financial gain... isn't there enough spam on the internet already, now its has to be encyclopediatized??
- kara1234, on 12/07/2007, -0/+3Rmxz writes: "If you think you know how Wikipedia can be run better, instead of whining on digg - fork the project"
There is just corruption in parts of Wikipedia which should be dealt with. It's like trying to address George W Bush's abuses. You could technically go to another country, but its more patriotic to try and fix what we have. Nothing will ever be perfect, there is a lot of good in Wikipedia's community. If the community can address this issue of corruption, Wikipedia would be much better off.
I think of it as an problem endemic to all organizations. People who have been in positions of power for too long learn how to abuse the power and get away with it. That is what has happened. There is an internal clique who know how to use the rules to their advantage and have lost cite of the original goals of the project. If this were a democracy, it would be time to have an election and vote out this particularly corrupt clique of administrators. -
Show 51 - 100 of 156 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is